User talk:Unbh/Archive 1

Please stop following me around and undoing my edits. You have done this respectively and without showing good reason, such as when I changed the page for Downfall to correct a mistake. The mistake was genuine- Hitler spoke with a Bavarian accent, not a standard Austrian one, as he grew up in Bavaria from the age of three. His accent was thus very distinctive, as many Germans struggle to comprehend Bavarian even today. The point is, mate, you're a newcomer, and you should learn to respect the changes people like I make, as it's purely out of concern that something is incorrect or needs additional information.--222.153.41.39 (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@222.153.41.39: you've been reverted, you need to discuss on talk per WP:BRD. the language you are using is not encyclopaedic, and it's not all properly sourced either.Unbh (talk) 13:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

Hello, I'm Antique Rose. An edit that you recently made to John Lennon seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Antique Rose 07:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at John Lennon shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sundayclose (talk) 18:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Zippy (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Unbh reported by User:Zippybonzo (Result: ). Thank you. Zippy (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit to Corn...

...because it occurred to me that most people who are creating/expanding articles mean maize when they write corn. Your redirect caused a little over 700 pages to have disambiguation links on them. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 07:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"It occurred to me" sounds like cast iron WP:OR but hey ho.

Maybe, you stop stalking?

Your edits on hospitality exchange networks, and even on Hobby horse (toy), since I created Hobby horsing, are creepy! This is intimidating!--Geysirhead (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I started looking into hospitality networks after I found the first article I looked at had so many problems, it's not unreasonable to edit others after that. You need to take a look at WP:OWN for those anyway.

You have a history for tendentiously going through my history and reverting edits, including with unwarranted accusations of vandalism, so maybe think about that before you start thworing about accusations of intimidation. As it happens obviously I did see hobby horsing in your edit history. There were a number of edits I'd make there under normal circumstances but I didn't for fear of provoking this sort of reaction when we're already engaged on the Hospitality stuff. Unbh (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You started going through my history first.--Geysirhead (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stub tags

About this edit: Please remember that all stub tags go at the bottom, not the top, of the article - see WP:ORDER. Thanks. PamD 12:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Space Force Commander

A tag has been placed on Category:Space Force Commander indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coldplay articles

When will you start actually contributing to them? You're just deleting other people's work because of your personal opinions so far. If you think the heading is not good enough write a better one then. GustavoCza (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I an writing a better one by editing the summary down to what is important. Productive Editing is not just about adding every bit of information you can findUnbh (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are removing literally everything. I tried to reach consensus by talking about their early years briefly and you still keep destroying stuff. I spend a whole week preparing those articles, the Guy one is not even ready yet.

Detail in the main article is fine. You're duplicating very minor information on the lede. It is not a useful summary about an international rock star to say he had nice childhood and played recorder at schoolUnbh (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was like, one sentence. Multiple articles mention where an artist studied during their early years and you removed that too. GustavoCza (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And as I mentioned, if you want to contribute so badly then why don't you write more? A 4-line lead is not good, some stub class articles have longer leads, just think about it. GustavoCza (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because more isn't automatically better. Stub class articles are rarely a good example of anything. Please go and read MOS:INTRO.

"In such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article". The article has an early years section, how does deleting the formative years of a person's lead makes it better? GustavoCza (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the part on Jonny's style too. How is that not important for the lead? He is literally an artist. GustavoCza (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And how come the styles that influenced Guy's bass playing not relevant? Coldplay even made R&B-infused songs because of him. GustavoCza (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All very interesting. Not needed in lede. The lede info is that he's abs bass player

The lead is supposed to be an informative summary of what the article says. You haven't answered me: how removing everything is informative? GustavoCza (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not removing any information from the articles. I am editing the summaries so they focus on the important points. We don't need to know in the summaries if someone is left or right handed, or if they were in the scouts as a child.Unbh (talk) 05:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are not removing just that. Stop playing dumb. GustavoCza (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

Hello, I'm Volten001. I noticed that you recently removed content from Lambda without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Volten001 ^talk 09:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Harassment. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Harassment. Thank you. Baronet13 (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop following me around and harassing me

You're obsessed with deleting every single thing I do instead of contributing to the article. If the lead is supposed to hold on its own as a short version of the article how come a bit of their early years and artistry can't be included? What am I supposed to talk about then? --GustavoCza (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not harassing you, I just have those article on my watch list. This information simply doesn't need to be in the lede of these bios. It's not significant enough. Unbh (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits don't get notified on the Watch List, so yeah, you ARE harassing me. Leave me alone, you're not even a Coldplay fan to care about their articles. --GustavoCza (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And you haven't answered me either: If I can't talk about an artist's artistry what the hell am I going to talk about? Coldplay members being artists are literally the reason those articles exist to begin with. --GustavoCza (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea what you're talking about with minor edits, but yours are showing in my watch list so presumably they're not minor. What is minor is the information you're trying to force into the ledes

Edit warring at Jonny Buckland and Will Champion

Hello Unbh. You've been warned per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. You may be blocked if you revert either of these articles again in the next month without first getting a consensus in your favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added GustavoCza to the 3RR page in a new report, I admit I should have reported that user in the same report instead of just you. Despite this, no-one else apart from us made any contribution to the report and was archived too soon therefore a result was not given. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think this is an adequate way of informing that you've launched this again. Please do things properly if you insist on doing them at all.Unbh (talk) 07:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu American Foundation

Hi, Unbh! There is nothing to get consensus about as I did basic things that already exist on the page. I believe you haven't properly checked my edits before reverting them so quickly. Let me detail:

Infobox panel. If you take a look at the Establishment section, you will see the names of all the founders, which I simply put together in the Infobox: "The Hindu American Foundation (HAF) was founded in September 2003 by Mihir Meghani, an emergency care physician, Aseem Shukla, an associate professor in urologic surgery, Suhag Shukla, an attorney, Nikhil Joshi, a labor law attorney, and Adeeti Joshi, a speech therapist."

Second, I updated the organization's address as it is found on their official website:

https://www.hinduamerican.org

Hindu American Foundation 910 Seventeenth Street NW, Suite 315 Washington, DC 20006

- Only the suite number has changed here

- - Third, all I did for the Summary section was to bring the same statement (with the source) from the Establishment section:

The organization describes itself as a human rights and advocacy group, providing "a voice for the 2 million strong Hindu American community", that aims to educate the government and the public about Hinduism and the issues concerning the Hindus globally. It emphasizes the "Hindu and American ideals of understanding, tolerance and pluralism."[8]

So, it is not understood what sources your are talking about. I updated the Infobox and rebalanced the Summary from the text below. Please, take a closer look before your revert my edits again. --2601:1C0:CB01:2660:B433:771F:24C2:833C (talk) 06:11, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@2601:1C0:CB01:2660:B433:771F:24C2:833C: Please take this discussion to the article talk page.Unbh (talk) 07:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greek shields

Take your proposals to the talk page. I have been doing things by the book and, compared to your record, I have never had a ban or been seriously censured by the Wikipedia community. I am entirely happy for the dispute to go to exhaustive formal arbitration, if we cannot come to a mutual agreement. ;Urselius (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Urselius I equally have never had a ban, if we're comparing trophy cabinets. Let's focus on the matter at hand and not jump to ad hominems shall we.Unbh (talk) 09:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia Addition Suggestion

One of the sources I added had direct confirmation from the developer of the game, Dan Paladin, supporting that Crockett is listed in it, if that means anything. Bmags16 (talk) 06:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's all a bit 'so what' though. Davy Crockett is mentioned all over the place in all sorts of contexts - we don't link them all. You need a 3rd party RS showing why this is noteworthyUnbh (talk) 08:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough Bmags16 (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

Moving notice to bottom. Viewer⁷¹⁹ ^Talk!/_Contribs! 12:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ★Ama ^TALK ^CONTRIBS 12:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hospitality Club

I have collapsed the part of the talk page that distracted from the productive discussion of the article text. Please rejoin that discussion and reach consensus with the other editors in good faith. (If you choose not to continue with that discussion, the other editors can assume that your silence equals agreement.) Schazjmd (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

How is "[...] being the youngest [...]" grammatically incorrect on Berryman's page? --GustavoCza (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ella Henderson

Per WP:UKNATIONALS, it asks us to consider any established consensus. There isn't any on the talk page. WP:UKNATIONALS also says to consider the reasons why a particular denotion is listed. Given that Henderson has a Scottish grandfather (as seen here), it makes sense to use British over English. The guidance even says An editor may query you, or revert your choice—so be prepared to explain your decision which is exactly what you did but you did not provide a reason why other than pointing to WP:UKNATIONALS which doesn't actually support your reversion as you failed to provide a reason why English should be used over British. Rather than revert back, a discussion should be started on the talk page. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 08:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lil-unique1 the right forum to discuss this is the article talk page. Please start a discussion there.Unbh (talk) 09:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't have reverted my change - the owness is on you to prove a consensus exists for reverting my change. User talk pages are appropriate places to question individual behaviour - there is no such thing as "consensus implied by long standing", particularly where I've presented sources/evidence that demonstrate and support the change I'm making. But as you wish, the I will start a discussion on the topic's talk page and you of course are welcome to contribute. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 12:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've presented no sources, though i suspect you're engaging in WP:SYNTH based on sources already in the article. You've ignored WP:BRD. See WP:SILENT for why there's implied consensus for longstanding content. That's the end of this on my talk page please.Unbh (talk) 13:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Original research on Byzantine battle tactics?

Before the long editions of recent months the article and its narration made little to few sense at all with much of the information clearly improvised and irrelevant. Most of the sources cited apart from the last two include text, phrases and information directly borrowed from said sources.

How can the article acquire more negative watermarks when the narration and previous version of said article was much less elaborated and little revised? The review of the sources provided before the last two additions and their information should be thoroughly reviewed before any sudden changes. The reasons were very vague and with a certain lack of criteria by not taking these parameters into account before adding the watermark.Pablo1355 (talk) 02:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Discussion invitation (Jezebel)

Hello, Unbh. You have new messages at Talk:Jezebel#Song_Jezebel_by_The_Rasmus.
Message added 12:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FreundTech (talk) 12:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this has all been discussed and debunked on talk before. Discuss further there before restoring

Sources for the debunking? I referenced sources from Summer of 2021, I doubt that has been debunked. There are literally hundreds of other sources and studies that show the same results as well.

Chess

How about you edit in areas where you actually have a few clues what you're talking about? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please take your personal attacks elsewhere. Unbh (talk) 12:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Policing infoboxes

BTW, please stop working your way through infoboxes enforcing an aspect of the MOS that doesn't have a strong consensus. This sort of editing behaviour causes friction and is generally unhelpful. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

Hi Unbh! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Operation Storm several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Operation Storm, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Struga

Can you please tell me where in the source you are posting does Skender Gashi mention the city of Struga and its relation to the term shtrunge, and since you told me to participate in the discussion on the talk page can you tell me where you have replied to my posts or anyone for that matter since from what I can tell nobody is replying to mine and two other editors posts about how none of the sources used mention Struga at all. Also can you tell me why the Wikipedia page cannot use both sources and both claims for the average trader to know both sides?

Thanks GoofyMF (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep discussion on the article talk page - it's not useful here. I was just restoring the stable version before you guys stated edit-warring. It seems that there's consensus on removing that bit now and it's been done anyway.Unbh (talk) 04:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Battle of Vukovar has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. 93.136.75.98 (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus for that, read here [[1]] . Don't do edit war you've already broken it three-revert rule.93.136.75.98 (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not True, Unbh did not violate 3RR, according to admin Bbb23 there was no Violation, those edits from april do not count. There has to be four reverts in a 24 hour period in order for it to be a violation of 3RR, there is only 1 edit today so i agree with admin Bbb23 there was no violation. Chip3004 (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Flexman (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant discussion in WT:MILHIST

Hi, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Dates of rank, assignments, awards and decorations on military articles violating WP:NOTCV for a discussion relating to your recent blanket removals of promotion and award content from military biographies. Ljleppan (talk) 07:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 11:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant discussion in WT:MILHIST

Hi, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Dates of rank, assignments, awards and decorations on military articles violating WP:NOTCV for a discussion relating to your recent blanket removals of promotion and award content from military biographies. Ljleppan (talk) 07:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Evilfreethinker (talk) 07:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

lol we were j kidding around. ty sm for correcting our foolisness 100.35.51.42 (talk) 04:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disengage

Do not post at that user's talk again unless for a required notification. It does not matter who is right or wrong, you are obviously unwelcome and repeated violations of WP:DTTR looks like trolling regardless of intention. Johnuniq (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq If you care to look he has added a personal attack to pretty much every interaction we've had and has been consistently uncivil, with extensive abusive language, sometimes coming back hours after his initial messages to add more. He's now brought that to my talk page as well. I will template him if he continues to abuse me, or to post on my talk page which I have asked him to desist from doing, there's no reason why I should absorb his consistently obnoxious behaviour without responding. Unbh (talk) 03:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason you should disengage is that repeated violations of WP:DTTR looks like trolling regardless of intention. Your choice is to risk ANI or disengage or be blocked. Johnuniq (talk) 04:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Political prisonership controversies has been nominated for deletion

Category:Political prisonership controversies has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of BeWelcome

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on BeWelcome requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BeWelcome (2nd nomination). When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of BeWelcome

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on BeWelcome requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BeWelcome (2nd nomination). When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. John B123 (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Royal houses of Britain has been nominated for deletion

Category:Royal houses of Britain has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]